As I have understood from what PRO has said in his first round and in the comments section, this debate is about whether electronic gaming(irrespective of platform) is a sport or not.
Since PRO is affirming the claim and since the claim is against the status quo, he has the entirity of the BOP in this debate. As Con I will have to negate the argumens he comes up with.

If PRO would like to communicate anything with regard to the above, I request him to do so before he goes ahead with his Round 2.

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I will agree to his or her terms. For the second round, it will be an opening argument that will be needed to be kept short. Anyways, onto the debate!

When we look at sports, what do we expect. We expect common sports, like volleyball, football, and etc.; and many disregard on Gaming being a sport. Maybe because of the lack of actual physical activity, or just plain weird to be called a sport, but Gaming is indeed a sport. Referring back to the definition of "Sport", given in the first around, it is defined as: "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment". Technically, within the definition, Gaming is a sport. How? Well if we look at professional at what is done within professional gaming, you do put physical exertion within pressing the buttons, similar to other Games considered as sport including: Golf and Bowling; and the actual game does take loads of skill. Stated under "Is Computer Gaming a Sport", it states the skills needed is teamwork, lightning fast reflexes, and the ability to sit on a chair for hours and hours without being tired out. Much harder, then what people interprets.

As well as within the definition of "sport", Gaming does draw in a large crowd for entertainment purposes. A few examples of events include: ESports, Pokemon Tournament, Call of Duty Worldwide Championship, etc. The number of events are limitless, and they are located typically under their website "Major League Gaming". Also, the number of people that attend these events, through the computer and actually live, ranks up to about 70 million worldwide. That is a huge amount, while if we compare that to a soccer stadium in Seoul, they only get 40,000 to 50,000 individuals. As well as the fact that with professional gaming, a big revenue of money comes along with it. With the advertisements for energy drinks, apparel, and the games themselves. Last year at Esports, they racked up about 20 billion dollars. That's a lot for a simple concept of a game, and it still isn't considered a sport? All the information was gathered from New York Times "In Esports, Video Gamers draw in Real Crowds and Big Money".

To conclude this argument, the reason why Gaming is a sport is because it follows the definition of "sport". You do, technically, do physical activity, require a hefty amount of skill, and do draw in a hefty amount of entertainment. And to support my argument even further, stated under the article "Competitive Gaming Recognized in U.S. as a Pro Sport", it states that at least 70% of the U.S considers gaming a sport. While if we look at the past, where new sports were being considered a "sport", the determination f this was from the people. And if the people state that it is a sport, why can't it be?

The resolution is “Is gaming a sport?” and as PRO my opponent should provide an exhaustive case that shows that gaming is, in fact, a sport. What this means is that, it would not be enough for him to prove that a few games should be just CONSIDERED as a sport but he should prove that gaming as a whole itself, IS a sport.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now moving on, as promised, my case in this round will be brief.

Attack with the definition:

Approaching with the definition of sports the first fundamental criterion that decides if an activity can be accepted as a sport is physical exertion. It can be argued that swiping of fingers and pushing of buttons fulfil this criteria. But even if this is right games that can be controlled by the mind have already been developed [1]. The second criteria is the need for competition. Games that have multiplayer options are very few when compared to the vast majority of games that have been released until now. If analysed only a small fraction of all the games ever created would have the option to compete with other players.

Attack with tradition and law:

“According to Clark, A. (2010), Title IX has specific criteria for what counts as a sport including that a program must have the following:

• Competitions during a defined season

• A governing organization

• Coaches

• Scheduled practices

• Competition as its primary goal”[3]

Competitive cheerleading too was asserted to be a sport but U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill, declared in 2010 that “competitive cheerleading did not have the organization, post-season structure or standardized rules required to be considered a varsity sport.”[2] Title IX says, for an activity to be considered a sport its primary purpose should be competition.[2] As we all know, the primary purpose of gaming is basically entertainment. It’s more of an ‘interactive movie’ that we enjoy to pass the time. Gaming fails to qualify on this aspect so necessarily, it cannot be a sport.

To begin my argument, I will rebuttal against my opponents case and then post new arguments for the debate. My opponent starts off with the attacking of the definition of "sport". He or she states, given the quote: "But even if this is right games that can be controlled by the mind have already been developed". It is true that some games can be played with the mind have been developed, but technically requires physical exertion. Stated under "Mnemonic Dictionary", the definition for physical exertion is: "The activity of exerting your muscles in various ways to keep fit". With the given example from my opponent, video games played with the mind does exert your muscles; your brain muscles. And video games have been stated to help the brain, by allowing it to be focused on one thing; instead of many. Stated under "Are Video Games Good for the Brain", it states: "Studies show that video games improve hand-eye coordination, problem-solving skills, and the mind's ability to process information". So if my opponent claims that games you play with the mind do not exercise the brain, then how are video games improving on certain tasks after playing them? Also, in the last round, my opponent even admits about the physical exertion within a video game saying: "It can be argued that swiping of fingers and pushing of buttons fulfill this criteria".

Then my opponent claims that there are not enough multiplayer games, and more single player games. I will admit that there are more single player games, than multiplayer, but we must consider the competition among players in single player games; Speed Runs. Stated under the "Speed Runs Website", it states that a Speed Run is the attempt of completing a game as quick as possible; in the form as a challenge or competition. So technically a Speed Run can be a form of competition, where my opponent argues that a single player game cannot be a competition. And also, stated under the article "Are Video Games Becoming Too Focused On Multiplayer", it states that ever since the year 2013, video games have been adapting to a more multiplayer environment. Meaning that within 7 years from now, it is estimated that 85% of games will have a multiplayer element to it. Most likely competitive multiplayer, for the fact of being more sells that cooperative.

Then my opponent brings up a source, from Clark A, stating the elements for something to be considered a "sport". I will refer to the statement, and prove that gaming does this event or action. "Competitions during a defined season", Gaming accomplishes this task with numerous tournaments throughout the year, and if we get technical, Gaming has more events in the Summer than other seasons because of younger Gamer's being in school, and more free time within the season. "A governing organization", Gaming does have this with numerous hosts hosting tournaments, and being organized by huge companies. It does meet this criteria of Clark A's statement. "Coaches and Schedule" first off, there are coaches when it comes to Professional Gaming. Stated under "What does an eSports Manager Actually Do", it states that there primary job is to calm down the players from excitement and cockiness, as well as in charge of coming up with the plan and letting the players execute the command. To achieve these events, they require many scheduled practices. Stated under "How to Become a Professional Gamer", it states: that the number one step is to practice extensively. Either by ones self, or with others for a certain event. "Competition as its Primary Goal" there is definite competition within Gaming. The definition for competition is: "The activity or condition of competing". My opponent, if I may ask, don't you do this is Gaming? I brought up many facts and details about the competitions that Gamer's compete in, and yet it still isn't considered a sport; why is this?

Now to my new arguments. To begin my new starting argument, I must ask my opponent if professional players in sports get paid? The answer would probably be "typically", and in fact, Professional Gamer's do indeed make money for playing the competion. Through numerous articles, the average amount of money a Professional Gamer makes is about 100,000 a year, yet more known Professional Gamers actually make almost 1 million dollars a year. That is a lot and if they are getting paid to do this, is this still not considered a sport?

I will conclude this argument, and will still stand upon my previous argument. The definition of "sport" matches the criteria of the purpose of Gaming.

Thank you PRO for your swift response. In this round I will be bringing in one more argument and then I will move on to rebuttals.

Attack with the resolution:

This perhaps is what makes PRO’s burden, impossible to be complete. As PRO in this debate he has to argue that ‘Gaming IS a sport’, so he has to provide evidence, of all gaming being a sport currently and not claims as to why some should be just considered as a sport. No matter how hard my opponent searches, be it on the Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org...) or on any other website, he would never be able to show that gaming as a whole IS a sport. At best, my opponent can show that some games can be considered as a sport or can be made as one in the future, but that wouldn’t help him in any way considering the position he is in, with accordance to the resolution. Since gaming isn’t a sport as far as the current world is concerned, my opponent is essentially arguing against a truism.

Rebuttals:

R1) Quality of physical work

This follows the conventionally accepted notion of what kind of physical work qualifies as sport and what doesn’t. First of, technically, pushing buttons could maybe be physical exertion, but so is writing with a pen, in competitive exams, so does that mean competitive exams are to be considered as sports? Well, to answer this question, we must first establish an objective criterion that can sieve the correct activities that have the similar physical exertion as involved in other sports and one way to do that would be to compare the calories burnt during the activity. Let’s take some activities that have been generally accepted as sports and examine the amount of calories burnt:

Activity |||| Calories burnt per hour

A casual soccer match |||| 408

A competitive soccer match |||| 612

Rugby |||| 620

Basketball |||| 476 [1]

Now coming to video games, by playing it for one hour you burn about 61.8 calories [2]. To put it in a relative scale even when you sleep you burn between 40 and 80 calories per hour [2]. This goes to establish that the physical activity that comes with gaming doesn’t qualify to be anywhere near to what other sports have.

Defending argument about Mind-controlled games:

My adversary commits a really big blunder here. He, in order to rebut my argument about mind-controlled games, says “video games played with the mind does exert your muscles; your brain muscles”. This statement of his makes me curious as to where he gets his research from or if he is even concerned about the credibility of his claims. Anyway, addressing his rebuttal, elementary level biology would tell that brains, aren’t made up of any muscles, they are in fact made up of nerve cells [3], hence my argument about mind-controlled games still stands firm.

R2 Competition in gaming

I will now address all the arguments my opponent made in regard to competition involved in gaming.

Note: Underlined statements are direct words from PRO.

So technically a Speed Run can be a form of competition, where my opponent argues that a single player game cannot be a competition.

Single player games aren’t made for competition no matter how one sees it. The primary purpose of such games is to entertain and engage a single user. As I had mentioned in my earlier round, for an activity to be considered as a sport, it should have competition as its primary goal. This is the same reason why competitive cheerleading isn’t a sport.

"Competitions during a defined season", Gaming accomplishes this task with numerous tournaments throughout the year

And the games that accomplish this task, as PRO says, comprise of only a minute fraction of all the existing games. So what about the rest of them?

there are coaches when it comes to Professional Gaming.it states that there primary job is to calm down the players from excitement and cockiness, as well as in charge of coming up with the plan and letting the players execute the command.

Again for how many games? I should remind my opponent that he is arguing for gaming as a whole and not professional gaming alone.

the average amount of money a Professional Gamer makes is about 100,000 a year, yet more known Professional Gamers actually make almost 1 million dollars a year. That is a lot and if they are getting paid to do this, is this still not considered a sport?

I’m not sure where PRO got the idea of earning money being a criteria for considering an activity as a sport, nevertheless, this is irrelevant to the debate.

Before beginning my argument, let me apologize to my opponent for not arguing in a bit. I recently got a new pet kitten, and was giving it the attention it needed. I really did want to post my argument fast, but my personal life comes first; as well as I wanted to make a solid argument for the debate as a whole. I apologize, and will now go onto the debate. For this round, I will mainly do rebuttals and see if there are any more arguments i wish to place within the debate.

To begin, I will clarify on how gaming, as a whole, is a sport. It is true that I cannot find one source saying that it is, but I will provide a new perspectibr and set amount of evidence to prove that gaming can indeed be a sport. I will use the required steps, stated by my opponents evidence in the second round, on what makes something a sport. "Competitions during a defined season" now I admit this one is debatable, but lets discuss on how this relates to gaming being a sport. Lets think of a situation like this, you and a few friends are deciding to play a round of Billiards, or Bowling for the day. You go out and play the sport within the middle of Winter, even though that is not the "defined" season of the sport, but still have fun. Are these two activities not a sport because of not playing at the exact time as competitions are happening? No, they are a still a sport, but are just being played as a casual thing. Gaming achieves this same idea where even though it is a sport, does not mean you should be "required" to play it at an exact time.

"A governing organization" is definitely in games, with its brand of titles and producers of the games. They are in charge of releasing the product, so others may join and play the game as well. They produce the content, and the consumers play that content for their enjoyment Similar to buying the equipment needed to play a certain sport, like hockey, football, etc. "Coaches", this type of characterizing a sport is within the games that many play. When you begin a game, a tutorial is typically given to guide the player through the controls. These "tutorials" are the coaches, where if we define coach, from "Merriam Webster Dictionary", is: "A person who teaches and trains the individual within a certain activity". My opponent may argue about a tutorial not being a person, but who programs the tutorials within games. Humans do, and they are also technically the coach for providing the tutorial for the player. "Scheduled Practices", when most people play a sport, many can argue that practice is needed. So if we go with that logic, you are saying that if I were to go play a round of golf for "fun", I would need to be required to practice to be good; instead of letting me lay the sport as a hobby? My opponent would probably respond with "no", and gaming is very similar in this perspective, its an occasional hobby.

"Competition as its primary Goal" which is actually done within both multiplayer and single player video games. Multiplayer games I think we can both agree is self explanatory of why they have competition, but lets take a look a single player games. Single player games do, indeed, have competition within their core element; resolving the challenges presented within the game. I will change the text style for this portion of my argument, so it is easier to understand.

Competition: The activity or condition of competing.Compete: Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over obstacles

What is the typical goal within single player video games? Defined from the definition of "compete" it is to strive or win by defeating or overcoming obstacles. That is the goal in most video games, and if we look again at the definition of "competition", it is the condition of competing; which is what you do with playing a single player video game. To support this argument, I will provide a source of evidence that agrees with this statement. Stated under researcher, Peter Vorderer, under his paper "Explaining the Enjoyment of Playing Video Games: The Role of Competition", he says: "Apparently, the games‘ interactivity allows for a continuous stream of challenging and competitive situations that have to be resolved by the players. Competition is therefore regarded a key element of the explanation of players‘ entertainment experience". Furthermore, he also says: "Imagine that suddenly a horde of evil monsters appears, attempting to kill the player’s character with their deadly claws. A competitive element has been added to the situation: Now there is a necessity to become active. The player has to do something to cope with the threat which has been imposed on her/him by the game program". And finally said: "The player will try to resolve the task by performing

the appropriate and effective actions. The game will will deliver a visible result of this action: Either the player succeeds (that is, kill all the monsters before they eliminate her/his character), or the competition is lost (the monsters kill or injure the player’s character)". This source helps prove the challenges a player faces, within playing a single player game. So all the steps, within my opponents source on what makes a sport a "sport", is confirmed within the elements of gaming; just needs to be looked at from a whole different perspective.

Now, I shall rebuttal against a new argument my opponent about the physical fitness within a sport. My opponent brought up a rebuttal that pushing buttons is similar to competitive exams. I agree that not a lo of physical activity is gained, but lets look at another game that is actually considered a sport; Poker. Stated under "Is Poker a Sport", it says: "The very fact that poker is a sport is very unexpected". It states that Poker is a sport, and is actually broadcasted under ESPN2 proves that they consider it a sport. How much calories are burnt in poker? Through the article "Is Poker a Sport", it states that only about 50 calories are burnt through one hour of sitting at the table. Most of the calories are burnt from moving, for a short period of time, and regained by drinking alcoholic beverages. Claimed by my opponent, he or she quotes: "Now coming to video games, by playing it for one hour you burn about 61.8 calories". Poker is considered a sport, and burns less calories than video games; so this disproves my opponents argument of a sport needing to be required to burn loads of calories. Also, stated under the website "Calorielab", it gives us a whole list of sports and the amount of calories burnt within an hour, and the lowest burnt is Croquet. Only burning a "whopping" 73 calories within an hour, which is not far behind gaming.

In the previous argument, I argued how "Mind Controlled Games" excercise your muscles. My opponent argues back that the brain is not a muscle, but are made up of nerve cells. I did research and found multiple sources of evidence that says that it is a muscle, and others saying it is technically not a "muscle", but should be treated like one. Stated under the website "Your Amazing Brain", it states: "10% of the brain is both fat and nerves"; disproving my opponents claim or being made up on nerves. And further states: "New research shows that, the brain is a muscle, the more you use a part of your brain, the larger it will get". And other research says that it is not a muscle, but should be treated like a muscle. Stated under "Grow your Brain", it states: "New research shows that the brain is like a muscle. It gets stronger with practice. Scientists have been able to show just how the brain grows and gets stronger when you learn". So I will agree and disagree about the brain being a muscle, but still should be treated like a muscle; and video games accomplish this task. Stated under the article "Playing Video Games is Good for the Brain", it states that when you play video games, it improves reaction times and hand eye coordination. As well as the fact that under another article, titled "Mind Controlled Video Games can Improve Mental Health", claims that you will be required to use your mind more in order to achieve the goal; which excercises the brain. Either way if a brain is or isn't a muscle, it still should get excercise and video games achieve this effect.

To conclude this round of my argument, I first like to bring up some things my opponent did not rebuttal against my initial case. The first being the fact that Gaming draws in a large crowd of viewers, even more than the Super Bowl. And like with sports, there is gambling and video games achieve this. it is a huge source of media, and draws in large enough crowds; so why can't it be a sport. As well as within my first argument, I brought up a statistic that 70% of the U.S claim that gaming is a sport. If gaming is claimed by a majority of people as a sport, why isnt? It still meets the criteria, and has all the same impacts to all types of games.

Before beginning my argument, let me apologize to my opponent for not arguing in a bit. I recently got a new pet kitten, and was giving it the attention it needed. I really did want to post my argument fast, but my personal life comes first; as well as I wanted to make a solid argument for the debate as a whole. I apologize, and will now go onto the debate.

That’s perfectly understandable, no worries.

To begin, I will clarify on how gaming, as a whole, is a sport. It is true that I cannot find one source saying that it is, but I will provide a new perspectibr and set amount of evidence to prove that gaming can indeed be a sport.

Again PRO confuses with the resolution here. This debate isn’t about whether if gaming can BE a sport it is about if it IS a sport. As I had said earlier there is no objective way of proving this. But anyhow, whatsoever, I will not refrain from addressing his arguments.

"Competitions during a defined season" now I admit this one is debatable, but lets discuss on how this relates to gaming being a sport. Lets think of a situation like this, you and a few friends are deciding to play a round of Billiards, or Bowling for the day. You go out and play the sport within the middle of Winter, even though that is not the "defined" season of the sport, but still have fun.

We see that PRO uses the analogy of billiards to compare with games. This analogy of his would have been fine if he was arguing for a specific game that follows a set of specific role but that’s not the case here. Since he is arguing for gaming as a whole, he therefore has an impossible burden of proving every game ever made has competitions during a defined season, only then would the condition of “Competitions during a defined season” be satisfied.

"Coaches", this type of characterizing a sport is within the games that many play. When you begin a game, a tutorial is typically given to guide the player through the controls. These "tutorials" are the coaches.

My opponent is trying to strawman the condition of “coaches” in order for it to suit his purpose. A tutorial in a game just helps you to get started in the game and make you get to know the basics, figuring out the rest is the player’s job. Almost all of the learning in the game is done by the players themselves.

Competition: The activity or condition of competing.Compete: Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over obstacles "Apparently, the games‘ interactivity allows for a continuous stream of challenging and competitive situations that have to be resolved by the players. Competition is therefore regarded a key element of the explanation of players‘ entertainment experience".

This argument uses cherry picked definitions and a series of statements that have an incongruent implication to the word competition in his arguments. The very first definition of competition in google is: “the activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.”[1] The “defeating or establishing superiority over others” factor is referred to other real individuals as can be seen in all conventionally accepted sports, and that is where the criteria of “Competition as it’s primary goal” comes from. I reiterate my last round, the number of single player games outweigh multi-player games by a large margin [2] and because of this fact, gaming as a whole, will not meet the criteria specified.

Mind controlled games:

My opponent provides assumptions of brain having some muscles so as to rebut this argument of mine but it is an established fact that the brain is made up of nerve cells, about 15-33 billions of them[3]. When mind controlled games are played only these neurons are activated and used, not anything else. Ergo, my argument still hollds.

I first like to bring up some things my opponent did not rebuttal against my initial case. The first being the fact that Gaming draws in a large crowd of viewers, even more than the Super Bowl. And like with sports, there is gambling and video games achieve this. it is a huge source of media, and draws in large enough crowds; so why can't it be a sport. As well as within my first argument, I brought up a statistic that 70% of the U.S claim that gaming is a sport. If gaming is claimed by a majority of people as a sport, why isnt?

The count of the number of people who think gaming is a sport is irrelevant to this debate. My opponent’s logic here is a classic ad populum fallacy. [4] In retrospect, decades earlier, almost everyone in the planet thought the earth was flat.

Above all as I had showed earlier, my opponent, at best, can only provide assumptions as to why gaming CAN be considered a sport. Showing that gaming ‘IS’ a sport would, necessarily, be going against a truism.

And with that we finish off the penultimate round of this debate. Before ending this round though I would like to request PRO to change his formatting in such a way that borrowed statements he makes, have marks of identification of some kind that point to the sources he cites.

For this round, it will be final rebuttals and the conclusion for this round; like stated within the rules of the first round. Before beginning, I will do what my opponent asks at the end of her argument, being to change the format of this debate. Now that, that is established, to the argument!

Again PRO confuses with the resolution here. This debate isn’t about whether if gaming can BE a sportit is about if it IS a sport. As I had said earlier there is no objective way of proving this. But anyhow, whatsoever, I will not refrain from addressing his arguments.

For this statement, I would like to please refer back to a quote, given by my opponent. She said: "It would not be enough for him to prove that a few games should be just CONSIDERED as a sport but he should prove that gaming as a whole IS a sport". Which i have actually done, with my last argument where I have stated: "To begin, I will clarify on how gaming, as a whole, is a sport. It is true that I cannot find one source saying that it is, but I will provide a new perspective and set amount of evidence to prove that gaming can, indeed, be a sport".

We see that PRO uses the analogy of billiards to compare with games. This analogy of his would have been fine if he was arguing for a specific game that follows a set of specific role but that’s not the case here. Since he is arguing for gaming as a whole, he therefore has an impossible burden of proving every game ever made has competitions during a defined season, only then would the condition of “Competitions during a defined season” be satisfied.

My opponent claims that using the game Billiards does not support my argument for a specific game. But I must argue that my opponent requested that I argue about Gaming as a "whole" as sport, and Billiards does accomplish this task. How? When do professional billiards players play? They actually play throughout the whole year in a series of tournaments. Similar to Poker, where it is considered a sport and is played throughout the year. Gaming accomplishes this feat, because there a numerous tournaments that do play out through the year. Stated under their own website "Major League Gaming", it gives a list about which upcoming tournaments are coming. As well as if we get specific, they do have a defined season which is "eSports". Hosted every Summer around the June frame, so it does have a defined season, and can be played throughout the year; similar to Billiards.

My opponent is trying to strawman the condition of “coaches” in order for it to suit his purpose. A tutorial in a game just helps you to get started in the game and make you get to know the basics, figuring out the rest is the player’s job. Almost all of the learning in the game is done by the players themselves.

Then we move along with the argument about how coaches are not within Gaming. In my previous arguments, I provided numerous sources of evidence and arguments about coaches being within the game. The third third round, I stated: " There are coaches when it comes to Professional Gaming. Stated under 'What does an eSports Manager Actually Do', it states that there primary job is to calm down the players from excitement and cockiness, as well as in charge of coming up with the plan and letting the players execute the command". And in the last round, i brought up the argument that the tutorial can be a coach. In the last round, my opponent quotes: "A tutorial in a game just helps you to get started in the game and make you get to know the basics, figuring out the rest is the player’s job". Isn't that the purpose of a coach? Coaches show you the basics, when it comes to a sport, like throwing or catching a baseball; and the player learns the rest because of the coaches advice from the start. How do players become "professional"? Is there coach the reason, no; its their skill. A coaches job is to guide them, and then let them "take" the wheel. Tutorials accomplish this task, which guides the player throughout the game.This argument uses cherry picked definitions and a series of statements that have an incongruent implication to the word competition in his arguments. The very first definition of competition in google is: “the activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.”[1] The “defeating or establishing superiority over others” factor is referred to other real individuals as can be seen in all conventionally accepted sports, and that is where the criteria of “Competition as it’s primary goal” comes from. I reiterate my last round, the number of single player games outweigh multi-player games by a large margin [2] and because of this fact, gaming as a whole, will not meet the criteria specified.

In this rebuttal, my opponent tries so hard to argue this; even though this part of the argument was won. I stated, last round, that the goal in Gaming is to conquer and beat it. Following the sub definition of "compete", where you accomplish the tasks within the video game. I even presented evidence, that my opponent neglected to even look at, that helped support my argument of why single player games can be a competition. Stated under researcher, Peter Vorderer, under his paper "Explaining the Enjoyment of Playing Video Games: The Role of Competition", he says: "Apparently, the games‘ interactivity allows for a continuous stream of challenging and competitive situations that have to be resolved by the players. Competition is therefore regarded a key element of the explanation of players‘ entertainment experience". Furthermore, he also says: "Imagine that suddenly a horde of evil monsters appears, attempting to kill the player’s character with their deadly claws. A competitive element has been added to the situation: Now there is a necessity to become active. The player has to do something to cope with the threat which has been imposed on her/him by the game program". And finally said: "The player will try to resolve the task by performing

the appropriate and effective actions. The game will will deliver a visible result of this action: Either the player succeeds (that is, kill all the monsters before they eliminate her/his character), or the competition is lost (the monsters kill or injure the player’s character)".

My opponent provides assumptions of brain having some muscles so as to rebut this argument of mine but it is an established fact that the brain is made up of nerve cells, about 15-33 billions of them[3]. When mind controlled games are played only these neurons are activated and used, not anything else. Ergo, my argument still hollds.

My opponent still argues about "Mind Controoled Games". Throughout the rounds, we argued about the brain being either a muscle or not. I did the research, and found numerous evidence saying different things. Some stating that it is a muscle, and others that state it isn't a muscle, but should be treated like one. When my opponent brought Mind Controlled Games for this argument, she stated: "But even if this is right games that can be controlled by the mind have already been developed". I argued that you do physical work, with the mind; and even stated how much work is done with mind controlled games. Fulfilling the definition of "physical exertion" within the definition of "sport".

The count of the number of people who think gaming is a sport is irrelevant to this debate. My opponent’s logic here is a classic ad populum fallacy. [4] In retrospect, decades earlier, almost everyone in the planet thought the earth was flat.

My opponent then argues on how irrelevant the number of people who think Gaming is a sport is not important. It is actually important because I ask my opponent "What makes something a sport"? The answer, the people determine if its a sport or not. Stated under "How Did Sport get so Big", it states that the determining factor of what makes a sport, a sport is from civilization. They are the main influence of what is determined "in" and "out". Presented with numerous evidence, I proved that 70% of the U.S consider Gaming a sport, and in other countries, they also consider it a sport. Stated under "The Rise of eSports: More People Watch Video Game Competitions than Major Sporting Events, it states that 32 million people tuned in to watch competitors play video games on the Internent. The highest number of people coming from the continent of Asia, which proves that the population loves watching competitors game. Following the idea on what makes a sport, being the people, it can be said that Gaming is, indeed, a sport as a whole.

To conclude, I wish to bring up some arguments my opponent made. She made arguments, and I countered them, and she "dropped" them. This proves that she has no counter argument for most my arguments that i have presented. The arguments my opponent has "dropped" include: Scheduled Events, Governing Organization, and the Fitness for a sport. My opponent dropped these arguments, meaning that I have won those arguments. And I pursued my arguments from the beginning, while my opponent only rebuttaled and did not continue with her arguments.

And with that, ends this debate. I want to thank my opponent for this debate, and "Good Luck" to her future!

Guess I wasn’t clear enough when I made that request to pro. What I meant was marking the statements he outsourced, to its proper citation. But anyway since we have come to the concluding round of this debate, it’s quite futile to pursue this further. Now before moving on I would like to thank my opponent for setting up this debate, even though it was set up to be a little lengthier than what was needed it ended out well towards the end I guess. I also thank the readers for their patient reading.

And now that we have come to the ultimate round of this debate, I would like to clarify something that has remained ambiguous from the start of this debate, the resolution. The resolution for PRO reads as: Gaming is a sport and PRO’s logic in showing this is as represented by this syllogism:

P1) If X satisfies the conditions listed in the definition of Y, X is Y

P2) X does indeed satisfies the conditions listed in the definition of Y

C: X is Y

Where X here in his argument is gaming and Y is sport.

I digress and move on to the BOP of the debate now. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and it is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render the claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. Since PRO is making the claim here it is his job to prove his claim. As CON in this debate I only have to cast doubts on his arguments and make them unsound.

So necessarily if I rebut any of the logic he used to derive his conclusion I would have won this debate and as some of you might have already noticed, PRO hasn’t provided any ground for premise 1. PRO has from the start of the debate has built his arguments based on this sole assumption which was, till the end, never proven objectively.

The faultiness in his argument can be demonstrated as such: A ball is defnied as “a solid or hollow spherical or egg-shaped object that is kicked, thrown, or hit in a game”. Now following the logic that PRO wants to exercise, we take the example of an apple or a stone, both spherical objects. Now if both these objects are shown as things that are kicked, thrown or hit in some game, does it mean an apple or a stone becomes a ball? No, it only implies that such objects CAN BE USED as a ball.

Thus, PRO failed to establish a criteria that would make one object become the other and hence his whole case becomes irrational.

Now moving on to his second premise, I only need to show one condition of sport, that gaming fails in, in order to rebut my opponent’s claim but I believe I have quite a few.

Competition as its primary purpose:

PRO argues that the completing objectives and conquering obstacles in the game itself are to be considered as competition. This argument fails because, when we talk about competition in sports it is STRICTLY about competing with other players. Completing objectives are merely challenges that the game presents, TO KEEP US ENTRTAINED. Just because a researcher said that it has a ‘competitive element’ doesn’t mean it has the kind of competition that qualifies it, to be considered, as a sport.

Addendum: Single player games

The only valid argument that PRO has now, are multiplayer games, where people compete against other people. But the resolution advocates the whole of gaming and the very fact that single player games come under gaming, per se refutes the argument.

Physical exertion: Mind controlled games

PRO himself defined physical exertion as exerting the muscles. Brain controlled games use sensors to measure and monitor brain waves and these patterns are converted to commands using a brain-computer interface. [1] These games fail in every aspect of the definition of being a sport. The fact that PRO advocates for gaming as a whole implies that his burden already has a hole just because of this.

Coaches in video games:

PRO claims that the tutorials that start up in the games are to be considered as coaches because they are made by people. But then, by that logic, websites with written instructions on how to play a sport should be considered as coaches too, but we know that, that is not the case. Tutorials in games are mere instructions and nothing more.

Addendum: Games that do have real coaches.

PRO has shown that some games do have real coaches, but those games constitute of a very little minority in the vast number of games actually present, thus that argument doesn’t hold any strength.

Ad populum fallacy:

PRO assumes that since a lot of people consider gaming to be a sport, gaming should be a sport. But this of course is fallacious, if a lot of people consider gaming as a sport then it only means a section of the population just CONSIDERS it as a sport. As in how lot of people considering homosexuality to be bad doesn't necessarily make it bad. Ergo PRO's argument fails to support the resolution he is advocating for.

Since gaming has failed on so many fronts to be considered as a sport, it thus simply cannot be seen as one. As CON in this debate I have shown that the claim that PRO made doesn’t have any strong ground and have given perfect reasons as to why. Thus, necessarily, the resolution has been negated.

Round 5
Pro rightly notices the "is vs can be" argument and attacks: however, I feel like Pro missed the point here, trying to use the "not enough" side of this statement, but his proof resides on the other side of the statement!

For the "as a whole" argument, I think Pro again does not address the point that Con is making, trying to tie the idea to the length of a season.

Pro tries to shore up "t9 3", re-iterating the eSports manager.

Regarding "t9 5", I feel like Pro is missing the subtle points here, instead just arguing that gaming is competitive - not addressing the "single player" and "primary goal" arguments.

Regarding exertion, Pro attempts, I think weakly, to defend "mind as a muscle" and then seems to be trying to define exertion without muscles. We'll see how Con replies.

Pro makes this interesting, bringing some strength to P3. This makes it interesting, as it contrasts with Title IX.

Also, although Pro points out the dropped arguments, Con picked up the dropped P3. However, Pro should have reiterated more on the dropped P2 here.

Con
Hmm, I assume the "Premise 1" here is that gaming matches the definition? I'm not sure how much the Apple/Stone story added to Cons position.

Con does well here reviewing and adding to "primary goal" and "single player", then "brain as a muscle", and "coaches". But I don't think Con countered Pro's populist arguments very well here.

In the end, arguments were pretty close. I think Con's pushing the burden onto Pro and narrowing definition of sport wins it. It didn't seem like either side picked up on the fact that there were two definitions of sport going on and there may have been missed opportunity for the instigator to deny this.

Round 4
Pro attempts to attack the Title IX definition. Good move as this is Con's best stuff at this point:

t9 1) defined season: good analogy used here, muddies the waters
t9 2) governing organization: Pro uses producers as the governing body
t9 3) coaches: tutorials and their authors as coaches
t9 4) scheduled practice: I'm confused on this point
t9 5) competition as the primary goal: Pro seems to not see the words "primary goal" here and the further definitions don't help much - will see how Con replies.

Pro tries to shore up P1, bringing in "Poker as a sport" and Croquet to counter exertion. Good stuff from Pro who needed it at this point.
Pro tries to salvage the "brain as a muscle" argument.
Pro also notices the lack of counter to P2 & P3.

Con
Con rightly reminds us of the "sport as a whole" argument, which Pro hasn't really addressed. Then back to Title IX:

Con
C1) pro must prove that gaming as a whole is a sport, not just specific examples
C2) some games are mind-control only: counters P1
C3) many games are NOT multiplayer
C4) Clark, Title IX definition
1) defined season
2) governing organization
3) coaches
4) scheduled practice
5) competition as the primary goal

Con ignored P2 & P3 and focused on attacks using Pro's definition of sport. Con narrows the definition of sport in her favor.

5 points to Con (Arguments, S&G, Conduct) 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: gaming is considered an e sport. just because its popular, it doesnt mean it should be classified as a sport.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) None of the point allocations are explained to any degree. (2) The voter does not analyze any specific arguments given in the debate to come to his decision. Merely summarizing one argument given by Con does not explain where the failures are in Pro's case, nor does that provide information enough to show that Con won the debate, merely that Pro's case had some measure of illogic to it.
******************************************************************************